Hentsch argues that European attitudes toward the Muslim Middle East transitioned from the 17th to the 18th centuries to have a greater awareness of differences and to spark greater debates on Europe. Once purely the object of contemplation, the Muslim Middle East became a stimulant for both eliminating some European biases and solidifying other in the cement of the so-called “reason” of the Enlightenment.
Hentsch describes how voyages during the 17th century were made to confirm the voyagers identity, understood in a collective sense. Rather than opening the traveler’s mind to a critique of his origins, it solidified hierarchical classifications of the world in which the Muslim Middle East was firmly a hierarchical second place. Views of the Muslim Middle East reinforced Europeans’ belief in the theory of progress, with Europe at the forefront of humanity’s march toward civilizational improvement.
The 18th century threatened to shatter the unblinking mirror with which Europeans had been understanding the Muslim Middle East, a place that was an object of contemplation that merely reflected and reinforced European notions of superiority. Once a European flatterer, the Orient increasingly became a raw-material reflection on Europe, the cause of self-reflective debate. Curiosity became the central means of penetration and appropriation of the Muslim Middle East. The result was a mixture of self-critique and vain dismissal.
Hentsch emphasizes the concept of oriental despotism, in particular, as an example of the vain dismissal the 18th-centuy debates, sparked by reflection on the Muslim Middle East, sometimes caused. While in the 16th century a few theorists, including Machiavelli, had indifferently characterized the Muslim Middle East as despotic, many 18th-century Europeans vehemently labeled the Middle East as despotic without, seemingly, a moment of honest self-reflection on their own political despotism.
The quick thought I was left with after reading this chapter is the famous phrase: "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity". To some extent, it is a necessary bi-product of being creatures who hold beliefs about moral, political, cultural, and religious issues that we will approach anything that differs with a bias against it, no matter how much we aim for objectivity. However, the debates in Europe in the 18th century themselves illustrate, I think, that human beings can also engage in earnest self-reflection. This is a tension that seems inherent in the human condition: to think well of ourselves and the beliefs we hold dear while still searching for the truth and wishing to be better.
Hey Aysha, I like your discussion of self-reflection and critique, and the related quote at the end. It truly is a cycle of observation and reflection, followed by further reassessment. It truly is a paradox of the human condition.
ReplyDeleteI also like your idea that the 18th century "threatened to shatter the unblinking mirror." I think your idea of a mixture of "self critique and vain dismissal" is a good way of putting Hentsch's argument about 18th century thought on "the Orient"
ReplyDeleteYou touch on big questions in your last paragraph! And I think you're right. What more can we do than maintain the "openness" of the Enlightenment (by Hentsch's characterization). Isn't Hentsch's critique of Enlightenment orientalism still carrying out the project of the Enlightenment?
ReplyDeleteIt's also interesting that Europeans labeled the Russian Empire as despotic. I'd argue that 'despotism' seemed to be the knee-jerk European reaction to any centralized government they encountered outside of western Europe.
ReplyDeleteI also thought your last paragraph on self reflection was interesting. I think to a certain extent when we are addressing how travelers spoke of other cultures its hard to distinguish between what was part of their time, individual and culture, and what was simply human nature. I think we had this discussion when it comes to the principle of attachment last week. It is something interesting to ponder.
ReplyDeleteMackenzie Tudor
Very nice last paragraph reflection. It's easy to say, look at those biased Europeans - how terrible of them to assume a hierarchy of culture and eastern inferiority. But really, to them hierarchy of mankind and societies was a God-given reality, and their achievements and intellectual output are thoroughly grounded into a worldview that to us might be politically incorrect but to them was simply the way things were.
ReplyDeleteHentsch does state that there was a double function of oriental despotism: to display it as despotism at its worse and also to show the potential of Western monarchies (109). In this way, I would say that Europeans were self-aware when writing of the East.
ReplyDelete